DISQUALIFICATION - PRIVATE PRACTICE BY JUDGES - It is improper for a judge to
disqualify himself to accept employment as an attorney in a probate matter handled in his
court before a special judge.

FIRM NAMES - PARTNER AS ADVOCATE BEFORE JUDGE - If a member of a firm becomes a
judge, his name should be deleted from the firm name. He cannot maintain a partnership and
act in his judicial capacity upon cases filed in his court by his partner even though
filed in his partners name only.

A county judge on several occasions disqualified himself from serving as judge and
accepted employment as counsel for the applicant in will probate cases filed in his court.
In one case the judge had previously acted as the attorney of the deceased in preparing
the will. In another the judge was distantly related to the deceased. But in most of the
cases there was no prior connection between the judge and the deceased or the legatees and
devisees of the deceased. The county judge is named as one of the partners in a
partnership with another lawyer in the community. His partner is often counsel for
applicants in probate matters handled in the judges court. The county judge does not
participate in fees derived from any matters handled in his court by his partner.

1. May a county judge properly disqualify himself and then ethically accept
employment as an attorney in a probate matter handled in his court before a special judge?
Is the conclusion any different in the event that the judge, prior to his becoming county
judge, or prior to the inception of the case, had represented one or more of the parties
involved?

2. May an attorney who is county judge maintain a partnership for the practice of law
with another attorney in the community, using his name and that of the other attorney, and
act in his judicial capacity in cases filed in his court by his partner in his
partners name only? Is the conclusion any different if it appears that the county
judge does not participate in the fee derived from the case filed in his court, but does
participate in the general fees collected by the partnership in other matters?

Opinions

1. A county judge may not disqualify himself and then accept employment as an attorney
in a probate matter handled in his court before a special judge. This conclusion would not
be any different in the event that the county judge, prior to becoming county judge, or
prior to the inception of the case, had represented one or more of the parties involved.
Article 319 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas provides that no county judge shall be
allowed to appear and practice as an attorney at law in any county or justice court,
except in cases where the court over which he presides has neither original nor appellate
jurisdiction. See also Articles 402 and 402 of the Penal Code and Opinion 13 of this committee. Even though the county judge
would have to disqualify himself from acting as judge in the matter because of his prior
representation of one or more of the parties involved, he could not then represent such
parties in the matter being handled in his court by the special judge after his
disqualification. Public officials should act with the utmost caution at all time to avoid
any suspicion on the part of the public that there is some influence operating on the
court in the handling of matters before it and they should not conduct themselves in such
a way as to impair the confidence which the community has in the administration of
justice. For a judge to disqualify himself from time to time and then appear in his own
court, even though it be before a special judge appointed in each instance, would tend to
arouse suspicion on the part of the public that there could be some influence operating on
the court in handling the matters in his court. (6-2)

2. An attorney who is county judge should not maintain a partnership for the practice
of law with another attorney in the community, using his name and that of the other
attorney, and act in his judicial capacity in cases filed in his court by this partner in
his partners name only. This conclusion would not be any different if it appears
that the county judge does not participate in the fee derived from the case filed in his
court, but does participate in the general fees collected by the partnership in other
matters. Canon No.30 provides that if a member of a
firm becomes a judge his name shall not be continued in the firm name. The retention of
the judges name in the firm name would tend to create the impression that the firm
possesses influence with the judge, and, in consequence, tend to impel those in need of
legal services in connection with matters before the judge to employ the firm. The
relations of parties in a law firm are so close that the firm, and all the members
thereof, should be barred from accepting any employment that any one member of the firm is
prohibited from taking, therefore, the partner of the county judge should not accept
employment in cases which the county judge himself would be disqualified to accept. See Opinion No.23 of this committee and Opinion No.142 of the
Committee of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association. (5-3)